Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics ParentCo (CFI, UPC_CFI_1357/2025, 26 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 June 2026 (“Order II”), made in infringement action UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_629/2026 concerning EP 3 107 487, the Brussels Local Division rules on the second application for production of evidence brought by the GC Aesthetics defendants against Establishment Labs S.A. It refuses a further sample and orders production of three categories of documents, aligning their scope and timetable with the disclosure order made on 23 June 2026 in parallel proceedings before the English High Court.

Question

Should a Rule 190 RoP application be granted as framed where parallel disclosure proceedings in the United Kingdom cover the same material?

Decision

The division restates the four cumulative conditions for such an order (paragraph 25). The further sample (Category A) is refused, since three pre-priority samples have already been provided and one has been tested (paragraphs 27 to 31). Category B (surface topography data for implants made before 29 May 2015) is narrowed to the search scope agreed before the UK court (paragraphs 32 to 34). Categories C (clinical follow-up reports) and D (test reports and change-control records) are granted, Establishment Labs having agreed to disclose them in the UK (paragraphs 35 to 37). Production is due within 28 days of the UK order, with an adjustment mechanism for Category B beyond 500 pages (paragraphs 38 to 41 and operative part). The defendants may seek adjustments to the timetable under Rule 9, the oral hearing of 2 December 2026 to be maintained (paragraph 41). A penalty payment of EUR 2,000 per day of delay was imposed, deterrent but proportionate (paragraphs 42 to 44), and the costs of the application were reserved to the decision on the merits (paragraph 45). The operative part orders production of Categories B, C and D within 28 days of the UK order of 23 June 2026, dismisses all other requests, requires a witness statement verified by a statement of truth confirming full compliance and that redactions cover only irrelevant confidential information, imposes the penalty payment, limits access to the confidentiality circle set on 23 April 2026 and states that any failure to comply will be taken into account on the merits (Rule 190.7). The panel was presided over by Judge Granata, as judge-rapporteur.

Key points for practice

• In parallel proceedings, the division aligns the scope and timing of production with what was agreed before the foreign court, so as to build a common evidential basis (headnote and paragraph 34).
• A request for a further sample fails where the samples already provided allow testing (paragraphs 29 to 31).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 59, 73 and 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 190, 190.7, 220.1, 262A, 263.3, 354.3 and 361

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_699/2025), on penalty payments.

Related decisions

• Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics, 4 June 2026, earlier order in the same proceedings.
• Establishment Labs v GC Aesthetics, 14 August 2026, later order on the admissibility of the rejoinder.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.